Should I try for the top 3?

[whitesupremacist]

2% and that assumes they went to a GREAT undergrad.

wow harsh

[«ě»]

Actually, I'm not anti-LSAT at all. I think standardized tests in general are good. I do however believe that is Stanford's reason. They want students who have proven more than knowledge. Prepping for LSAT can be done in a month or two, having a 3.9+ GPA proves that you've had a work ethic and ability lasting 3-4 years.

what would you all put the OP's chances at admission to stanford at percentage-wise?

Well, like many have stated, Stanford are GPA whores, and thus 2% is probably generous. Harvard and Yale are, at least to some degree, more flexible.

[Team Pam]

It doesn't hurt to apply, but you might want to consider retaking the LSAT if you think you can get your score up significantly.  And if you're interested in theory, you should definitely look into Georgetown's Curriculum B.  I think your chances at GULC are pretty solid.

[TWTW]

Lloyd: Hit me with it! I've come a long way to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendums
I went to cal, so decently sexy.
no aids curing, just a few leadership positions, the typical applicant really.
when i get around to it, the PS will be amazing (ppl have told me that im a pretty good writer - thanks mom)
but from my research law school is a numbers game, which means this all doesn't mean much
edit: o and im an minority but not a URM - thanks mom

[Nimmy]

who do you all think has a better shot at stanford...someone with the OP's numbers or someone with a 169/3.9?

Neither would get in.  Stanford is so small, and seemingly relies so little on soft factors, that it might be the toughest law school to get into in the country.

[«ě»]

who do you all think has a better shot at stanford...someone with the OP's numbers or someone with a 169/3.9?

Neither would get in.  Stanford is so small, and seemingly relies so little on soft factors, that it might be the toughest law school to get into in the country.

Yale disagrees.

[Nimmy]

I think Yale is easier to get into for people with "lesser" stats.  Yale probably rejects more 4.0 and 179 people though.

Just talking out of my ass.

[«ě»]

Yale: 6.8% acceptance, 170-176 lsat, 3.83-3.97
Stanford: 8.7% acceptance, 167-172 lsat, 3.77-3.96

Now obviously, we dont really know anything about their crowds below 25th percentile. but I'd argue that neither one is very forgiving. As an example, Harvard has a larger spread on both numbers (3.72-3.95 and 169-175) which is something I would believe signals slightly more leniency in numbers.

[Slow Children At Play]

Yale: 6.8% acceptance, 170-176 lsat, 3.83-3.97
Stanford: 8.7% acceptance, 167-172 lsat, 3.77-3.96

Now obviously, we dont really know anything about their crowds below 25th percentile. but I'd argue that neither one is very forgiving. As an example, Harvard has a larger spread on both numbers (3.72-3.95 and 169-175) which is something I would believe signals slightly more leniency in numbers.

Harvard also has to admit a class of 550 (rather than < 200) students fitting that number profile, so it's generally going to contribute to them having a greater range in both sets of numbers.

[dashrashi]

I have to say, I really don't think the OP's chances are good. The 3.4 is going to hurt, and schools don't so much care about in-major GPA. If you've got the money lying around, go for it, but if you don't, I wouldn't take out a loan or anything. With an LSAT retake and an early app, Harvard could be a possibility, but even then...I don't know. If you're straight out of UG or even just a few years, it'll be hard to distance yourself from the GPA.